Public Bill Committee

[John Bercow in the Chair]

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

E&S 16 Fairbridge

Clause 14

Educational institutions: duty to provide information

Amendment proposed [7 February]: No. 17, in clause 14, page 7, line 29, after ‘authority’, insert
‘provided that the relevant pupil or student has given written consent for the information to be provided.’.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

John Bercow: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 16, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert—
‘(3A) Any pupil or student to whom subsection (1) applies shall have the right to examine any relevant information requested by a local authority before that information is provided by the responsible person to the authority.’.
No. 19, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert—
‘(3A) Any pupil or student to whom subsection (1) applies shall be given the opportunity to correct any relevant information regarded by him as inaccurate, subject to the agreement of the responsible person.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), when agreement cannot be reached between the pupil or student and the responsible person the Information Commissioner shall decide what correction, if any, should be made to the relevant information.’.
No. 170, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert
‘which is relevant to assessing their educational and support needs.’.
No. 18, in clause 14, page 7, line 43, leave out ‘instructed the responsible person not’ and insert
‘not given written consent to the responsible person’.
No. 97, in clause 57, page 30, line 34, at beginning insert
‘Subject to the written consent of the pupil or student,’.

David Laws: Good morning to you, Mr. Bercow, and to the rest of the Committee. In your case, welcome back to the Chair.
At the end of the last sitting, as you indicated, Mr. Bercow, we came on to an important part of the Bill dealing with the information that must be provided to local authorities by a variety of organisations, with some of the information to be provided within local authorities from one department to another. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton raised some legitimate concerns regarding the Bill’s rather sweeping powers to require information to be passed over. I shall be surprised if we do not return to some of those specific matters, not only in the course of our discussions this morning, but in another place.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to indicate that he supports amendment No. 170, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, which would have the effect of requiring the information passed by institutions in respect of their pupils or students to a local authority to be
“relevant to assessing their educational and support needs.”
The fact that the amendment is necessary highlights the sweeping nature of the powers that the clause appears to attempt to take. It allows an institution to pass over information of a broad nature about young people—[Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to correct anything that I have said.
The clause is widely framed, and when one considers the type of information that educational institutions often collect and the difficult nature of their job in dealing with some young people, there is a fear that some of the information passed over may not be appropriate in the light of the powers in the Bill.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman says that the powers are sweeping. To help him and the rest of the Committee, I point out that subsection (3)(a) and (b) specifies which information would be transferred automatically. Any other information beyond that basic level would be transferred only with consent.

David Laws: The Minister is right that questions of consent are involved. I do not want to return to the debate we had in our last sitting and the points raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but he rightly asked whether young people and their parents would be in a position to exercise the right to opt out; whether they would be aware of all the information kept; and whether they would be notified in a reliable way before the information changed hands.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “opt out”. I will assist the Committee by pointing to subsection (4) which sets out the position if
“a parent of the pupil or student concerned...has instructed the responsible person not to provide information”.

David Laws: Yes, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said from a sedentary position, that is opting out. It is not opting in, which is the thrust of the Conservative amendments. The amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman would have a different effect from ours, although they deal with the same concerns. He has drawn attention to the fact that the end of subsection (4) is rather vague on how those responsibilities will be carried out. It states that the information held by the institution about a pupil or student can be handed over to the local authority unless the pupil or the parent of a pupil below the age of 16 has instructed the responsible person not to provide such information. As I understand it, that leaves open the questions of how young people or their parents might find out that that information will be passed over, precisely what checks and information would have to be available to them first, and whether they would have a right to correct the information and see all of it.
Those are legitimate concerns, because there might be cases involving, for example, child abuse where very sensitive information is kept by schools. I can think of cases in my constituency where imparting such information not only to an outside body, but sometimes to the parent in a case where the child has given the information in confidence, might be an extremely sensitive matter, and the Bill as it stands does not clarify what the checks and balances will be to enable that opt-out to be exercised in practice.

Jim Knight: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Bill, as currently written, reads as if there would be an opt-out, but it has to be read in conjunction with the data protection legislation, which requires active consent for that sort of information to be passed on.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. No doubt, he will set out the position as the Government see it when he responds to the amendments. We certainly want to ensure that those checks and balances are effective. We want to know how that process will operate and whether data held that might be inaccurate could be corrected, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton suggested.
We certainly want to know what objections the Minister has to amendment No. 170, which would attach to the end of subsection (3)(c) the proviso that the information that is handed over should be
“relevant to assessing educational and support needs.”
If the amendment was accepted, subsection (3)(c) would still be fairly widely framed, but it would be narrower than in its present form, which would effectively allow any information held by the school to be handed over.
I put it to the Minister that although the bulk of the information held by educational institutions about their pupils and students is likely to be relevant to their education and training needs, it is also quite possible that there might be some sensitive information held that pupils, parents and others might not want passed over. I hope to hear what the Minister will do to ensure that the information that is handed over is relevant only to educational and support needs, rather than being open-ended.
My second point relates to amendment No. 171, which I wish to mention in passing. There is a slight difference between the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and amendments Nos. 170 and 171 taken together. My understanding is that the Conservatives’ approach is essentially that there should be opt-ins, that people should have the ability to correct information that is inaccurate, and that there should be consent to information being passed over. Our approach is that the information that is passed over must be relevant to educational and support needs, but when we come to amendment No. 171 we will consider whether there needs to be consent to the information being passed over, or whether there is some information that local authorities, in the exercise of their responsibilities, should have access to if it is relevant to the educational and support needs that they are seeking to maintain. We will come to that point when debating amendment No. 171.

Jim Knight: I, too, am delighted to be back, refreshed after a week’s sojourn. I hope that the Committee will be sharp and businesslike—both of which are adjectives that describe your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow, which we continue to enjoy.
I will address the issues that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton raised when we last met and those that were just raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil. I will also explain more widely how the Connexions service works in practice and why that work is so vital to our shared aim of assisting young people to engage in appropriate education and training. I hope that setting that out for the Committee now will enable us to avoid going over these issues in such detail when debating later clauses. I apologise for speaking at some length, Mr. Bercow, but I assure you that this is an attempt to save time—perhaps “invest to save” would be a good phrase.
To be able to provide young people with support that is timely and appropriate to their needs, local authorities and Connexions need first to know who the young people are, how to contact them, and what education and training they are engaged in and where. It is also helpful to know what their needs and interests are so that they can be provided with appropriate, personalised advice and guidance. That will inform the planning of provision.
When a young person drops out and a provider has not been able to prevent it or re-engage them, the provider will let Connexions know, as set out in clause 13. Guidance professionals will get in touch with the young person immediately and help them to find an alternative place and resolve any problems. That is key to the considerable work that is being done across the country to drive up participation, to deliver the September guarantee and to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training. To achieve that, Connexions and local authorities need a high-quality, accurate system that tracks young people effectively.
The Green Paper “Raising Expectations: staying in education and training post-16” said that we would build on the system that Connexions currently uses to gather that information—the client caseload information system, which I will refer to as the CCIS. It uses information from a range of sources, including learning providers and other public bodies. Connexions personal advisers record information from their one-to-one contact with young people. I assure the Committee that none of that infringes on young people’s rights to privacy. I will elaborate on that point later.
As I mentioned and got to eventually in my third intervention on the hon. Member for Yeovil, young people have the right under the Data Protection Act 1998, rather than the Bill, to know if their information is going to be passed on. They can request a copy of it and can request that it be corrected if they think that it is wrong. They can prevent their school or college from passing on certain information about them. Connexions obtains their consent before passing on their information to other bodies. Young people can consent to the information being passed on to some bodies and not to others. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is right that that is the active consent to which I referred in the oral evidence session on 29 January. It is fair to say that it is not clear on reading the Bill where the act of consent comes in, because it is provided for by other legislation.

Nick Gibb: This is the crux of clause 14 and subsequent clauses. The explanatory note to clause 16 states that its purpose is
“to allow public bodies to provide information to local education authorities where other statutory provisions would prevent their doing so.”
My vague recollection from my period as a law student is that later statutes take priority over earlier ones. Clause 14(4) is very clear that it requires a student himself to instruct the institution when he does not wish information to be supplied. That implies that that provision, rather than other legislation such as the Data Protection Act, will be the law in relation to this precise transfer of information. Will the Minister give chapter and verse on the sections in the Data Protection Act that he believes will take priority over this later statute?

Jim Knight: I shall come back with chapter and verse in the fullness of time. I am sure that I will be able to do that fairly soon.
Returning to clauses 14 and 57, I would like to be clear that information sharing has been in place for Connexions since the Learning and Skills Act 2000 was passed. It is not new. None of the measures is new, but they are necessary because of the new arrangements between Connexions and local authorities. Learning providers already provide information to Connexions so that it can track young people’s participation and offer support that is appropriate and timely. As local authorities take responsibility for providing the Connexions service, they will need information sharing to continue so that the effectiveness of the service is not jeopardised. These clauses are similar to existing arrangements and are covered by the Data Protection Act.
Clause 14(4) does not require consent for sensitive information to be passed on, but the agencies must give a very strong public interest justification for it being passed on. Consent will not necessarily be required where there is a statutory power for the disclosure to be made, but parents and pupils will be made fully aware of the right to opt out in the fair processing notice that is issued annually. There are clearly some quite complicated issues about data protection, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on whether one piece of legislation supersedes the other.

David Laws: Will the Minister clarify two points? First, will the educational institutions involved have to give information of that type about past pupils and students, or are we talking about present pupils and students only? Secondly, how will consent be achieved in practice within educational settings? Who will seek it, what will the opt-out mechanisms be and how will the information be supplied to individuals? He has given us a formal ministerial description, but I would like something that feels a bit more human and comprehensible.

Jim Knight: I shall try to set out the latter point in the course of my longish comments. As far as I am aware we are talking about current pupils as they go through the system, and the various consents apply accordingly. I will correct that if I need to.

David Laws: The Minister may receive guidance from on high or from behind him, but will he clarify that the powers cannot be used in respect of an institution when the pupil or student has already left? That seems to me to be an important point and one that could well arise in some circumstances.

Jim Knight: I will clarify the point if I have to, but my reading of the clause is that it refers to part 1 and therefore relates to pupils who are going through the process. There may be other measures about being able to track the destinations of pupils, but they do not relate to this matter.
I was talking about the similarity between the measures in the Bill and other existing arrangements. The measures are covered by the Data Protection Act. I will write to the Committee about the detailed legal advice on superseding legislation. That will explain the matter more clearly than any comment that I can summon up from my collective wisdom here and now.
On active consent, when Connexions passes on information that it holds on young people, such as the information that is given through one-to-one contact, it asks for the young person’s consent before passing it on. Therefore, a very active consent procedure is already going on.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister repeat that last point?

Jim Knight: Certainly. I have been saying that all we are doing is repeating current law and current practice. Now, when Connexions passes on information that is held on young people, such as information that a young person may have given through one-to-one contact with a personal adviser, it always asks for the young person’s consent before passing it on. For example, in the course of a conversation about a young person’s treatment for an addiction, the personal adviser might ask whether they mind if that information is passed on to another body, such as a health body. The young person has the opportunity to say at that point whether they are happy to give that consent.
I can confirm that schools can only pass on information about existing pupils, if that helps to bring absolute clarity for the hon. Member for Yeovil.

Nick Gibb: On the point that the clause is merely extrapolating existing powers relating to the Connexions service, the Bill extends far more widely than simply giving careers advice to young people. It covers all young people aged 16 or 17, requiring them to remain in education or training until they are 18, on pain of criminal sanctions. That is the difference between the Bill and the legislation applying to the Connexions service, which is a narrow service provider of a limited range of services. The clause represents a huge difference in scale. I do not think that it is sufficient for the Minister to say that the much wider power and duty in the Bill is simply a continuation of the same provisions. I am worried—

John Bercow: Order. I make the point at this stage that interventions are becoming increasingly wordy. Progress to date has been relatively leisurely and I want it to become much less so. Will Mr. Nick Gibb briefly finish his point?

Nick Gibb: My other concern is that the amendment has been on the amendment paper for some weeks and I delivered my comments before the recess, so it is not adequate for the Minister to say that he will write to the Committee on the basic crux of his argument regarding consent.

Jim Knight: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point on the scale of the criminal consequence, in substance, we are talking about the passing of personal information from one body to another. That is a sensitive matter, regardless of the consequence. It is important that we protect sensitive information now and in the future, regardless of the criminal consequence attached to part 1 and the duty to participate.
In respect of what I said about writing a response on the topic of consent, the only reassurance that I can give the hon. Gentleman now is that the Data Protection Act was passed in 1998, and the governing legislation that we are replacing is the Learning and Skills Act 2000, so the governing legislation was already passed after the Data Protection Act. On that basis I do not envisage any legal problem with the provisions of the Bill. If I need to correct what I have said, as ever, I will write to the Committee to inform hon. Members.
To try to move on, Mr. Bercow: the fact that the provisions are similar to existing arrangements means that a young person can already request a copy of personal information held about them by their school, college or other provider, and that they could put the same request to Connexions or the local authority whenever they wish. If a young person believes that the information held on them is inaccurate, they can write to the organisation to set out what they believe is wrong with it and what should be done to correct it. If the necessary changes are not made, the young person can ultimately take the organisation to court, but they can also ask the Information Commissioner to assess whether the processing of their personal data has been carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Amendments Nos. 16 and 19 are therefore unnecessary. I assure the Committee that the sharing of information specified in the Bill is subject to the Data Protection Act, and that there is no need for the safeguards to be repeated explicitly here to make it so.

Nick Gibb: Why, then, is the safeguard in clause 14(4)? What is the point of that provision if that too is unnecessary?

Jim Knight: The provision repeats the safeguards already laid out in the Learning and Skills Act 2000. They are to differentiate the basic relevant information described in subsection (3) and the broader information, as described by the hon. Member for Yeovil. A difference needs to be set out in law.
Under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, learning providers pass on young people’s basic identification information to Connexions providers, including their name, address, date of birth, and the name and address of a parent, as set out in subsection (3). They and their parents are informed, normally by way of a letter, that that information will be passed on, and about the uses to which it might be put. The young person, or their parent if they are under the age of 16, has the right to stop any further information about them being passed on, and the Bill allows those arrangements to continue when the responsibility for Connexions passes to local authorities.

David Laws: I want to clarify that point, because it is obviously important. Is the Minister saying that under the existing system it would be possible to pass any of the educational and support information specified in subsection (3)(c) to a local authority without permission, or is the whole of subsection (3)(c) subject to the opt-outs in subsection (4)?

Jim Knight: Yes, my reading of subsection (4) is:
“Information within subsection (3)(c) must not be provided under subsection (1) if”
the pupil or student has instructed the responsible person not to provide the information. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman, because it seems fairly clear to me.

David Laws: I think that that is clear, but can the Minister clarify that no information that would be covered by subsection (3)(c), even if it is educational, can at the moment be passed on without an opt-out provision? I think that that is what he is saying, but it would be useful to be clear that there is that sharp distinction between what is in subsection (3)(a) and (b) and the rest.

Jim Knight: Yes, that is the case.

Nick Gibb: It is not clear to me. Is the Minister saying that the information covered in subsection (3)(c) will be supplied unless the institution has received written instructions not to do so—in other words, that the institution does not need actively to seek the consent of the pupil to supply that information?

Jim Knight: Yes. Is that helpful?

Nick Gibb: Yes, it is very helpful and confirms my concern that the active consent that the Minister said would be required will not be. It is still an opt-out situation, is it not? Has not he confirmed that the protection is only in subsection (4) and that the Data Protection Act 1998 does not require the institution to seek consent before supplying the educational information?

Jim Knight: Sorry. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that last question?

Nick Gibb: I do not understand the purpose of subsection (4) if the 1998 Act already requires the institution actively to seek the consent of the pupil before supplying the educational information in its possession about that pupil. If the data protection legislation applies, what is the purpose of subsection (4), which requires written instruction from the student not to supply it, and, in the absence of receiving that written instruction, can the institution supply the information regardless of whether they have sought consent?

Jim Knight: As I understand it, subsection (4) allows us to differentiate the basic information set out in subsection (3)(a) and (b) and other information, in terms of the law. Alongside subsection (4) are the measures in the 1998 Act, which will also apply to that sort of information.

Nick Gibb: This is crucial to the whole essence of the data-sharing provision. If an institution is requested by a local authority to supply educational information about that student, does that institution need to obtain written consent from the student?

Jim Knight: Sorry. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that question?

Nick Gibb: If the local authority requests information about a student from an educational institution, does it have to obtain consent from a student before supplying that information?

Jim Knight: Clause 14(4) is based on presumed consent, so that that information can be passed on more quickly, but obviously the 1998 Act applies on top of that.

Nick Gibb: That is not an adequate response. Imagine that I am an educational institution. I receive a request from a local authority for educational information about a student in my institution. Do I need to obtain consent from the student before I supply that information—yes or no?

Jim Knight: No, in response to the question about written consent before supply. Before an educational institution has to supply information, written consent does not have to be obtained, as I understand it. However, all the protections in the Data Protection Act that I have set out remain in the case of the individual and their parents.

David Laws: On how many young people is the clause likely to impact? Does the Minister envisage a large-scale data transfer in the years running up to a person’s 16th birthday, or does he think that it will be used in a small minority of cases?

Jim Knight: Every young person will be affected by the clause, because when someone reaches the age of 13, information is passed from the school or institution to Connexions so that it can offer advice as they move on to make choices at 14. Subsequently, as and when they have contact with Connexions, their record will develop. That further information could include the courses that they have studied, their grades, their attendance and changes of address. That gives Connexions softer intelligence on each young person, enabling it to tailor the support on offer.
Amendment No. 170, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil, would ensure that information is passed on only if it is relevant to an assessment of the young person’s educational and support needs. I can reassure the Committee that that is already the case. The first word of clauses 14 and 57 is “Relevant”. That will continue to be the case regardless of whether the information is passed on to Connexions or to the local authority. The law already regulates the circumstances under which information can be passed on. The Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act 1998 and a common law of confidence all ensure that the sharing of personal information without consent takes place only when necessary and proportionate. For example, in this case, it is relevant to the local authority’s duties under part 1 to promote participation or to provide the Connexions service. Amendment No. 170 is therefore unnecessary.

David Laws: Would it be relevant if a child had been abused by their parent, causing mental health problems, and if the school had information about that on its file?

Jim Knight: I dare say it may well be relevant if those sorts of things have happened. That information would be extremely relevant in respect of some clauses that we will discuss on public bodies passing information to Connexions and vice versa. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment to exclude health authorities and primary care trusts from passing on information. It is exactly that sort of scenario in which someone has mental health needs where we want a facility in law, so that that information can be passed on and the relevant support provided. In respect of mental health, the information would be held on a school’s pupil leave annual school census database—PLASC—but it would not be passed on by the school, because it passes that information up to the Department, and from there, the PLASC data will go down to local authorities and Connexions.

David Laws: Earlier, the Minister said that this provision could involve large numbers of children. His assumption, therefore, is that this information will be accessed for most of the cohort. Is that correct?

Jim Knight: As I said, data are held on PLASC and on CCIS in a very basic form. That is set out in subsections (3)(a) and (b) as
“the name, address and date of birth of the pupil or student”
and the
“name and address of a parent of the pupil or student”
for every pupil and student in the country. It therefore applies to the whole cohort. Is that the information that the hon. Gentleman was seeking?

David Laws: These are quite sweeping powers on the scope of information, and the need for an opt-out or an opt-in may relate to the size of the transfer. I think the Minister is saying that the transfer could affect quite a large number of young people whose permission would be sought.

Jim Knight: The basic information requirement affects every pupil. The duty to provide the name and address of the pupil or student, and the name and address of a parent of a pupil or student is set out in subsections 3(a) and (b). Subsequent information, such as that in respect of the DPA and whether there is an opt-in or an opt-out depends on the circumstances. In most cases, much of that information will be passed on, because parents will not withhold their consent, as they value the support generated from the Connexions services and others.
Let me try to make some progress by returning to amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 97, which deal with consent. The Data Protection Act 1998 already requires public bodies, including schools, colleges and training providers, to inform an individual if personal data relating to him or her is disclosed. In practice, that means, for example, that the school will actively approach the young person, or their parent, to inform them about the purposes of data processing, such as the type of information and the bodies with whom data may be shared and why. The school would need to repeat that annually, and every year, it should send some kind of notice home to parents setting out how the data will be used.
This requirement exists even where consent for the sharing of information is not required as a matter of law. The interests of the young person, and any consequences for them of information sharing, must be the paramount consideration. Adding a specific requirement for young people to give their written consent every time their school or college passed information to the local authority or its Connexions service would greatly increase bureaucracy and add complexity to the system. More importantly, it would reduce the ability of the Connexions service to provide timely and appropriate support to young people in finding and accessing appropriate courses.
In cases where young people did not consent to their basic identification information being passed on, the local authority and Connexions would not be able to track young people or know when someone had dropped out of education or training. That means that they might not be able to provide that person with any support, let alone timely support. The sooner the Connexions service contacts someone who needs support, the better the chances that that will be effective in getting them back into learning.
The additional requirement would be particularly burdensome on the young people themselves. It would effectively bar some of the most vulnerable young people, such as young people with special educational needs, those suffering from drug or alcohol abuse or those with chaotic lifestyles, from receiving support until they had formally consented in writing. That is not practicable or desirable. Young people do—and this will continue—have the option of refusing consent for additional information, which is information above their basic identification information, to be shared with the local authority. I hope that what I have said reassures hon. Members that the young person and/or their parents will be fully aware of whom this information would be shared with and why, and of their right to stop it happening.
While there are a number of support services that seek to reach out and support young people, the Connexions service is the only one that has responsibility for supporting all young people between 13 and 19. That is one of its strengths. None of the other partner agencies has been tasked with tracking all young people, and most other systems would only record information on those young people with whom they are working. Connexions is required to know about everyone in its area. It is the information provided by schools and colleges that forms the basis for the support that it provides, and enables it to identify young people who may need additional help.
I can reassure the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Yeovil that, in line with data protection principles, only information relevant to the provision of the Connexions service would be shared under the clause. This is likely to include gender and ethnicity, whether the young person is receiving support through SEN school action or school action plus, and which year group they are in. For those in their final year of compulsory education, it would include whether they had an offer to return to school for the sixth form. That allows the Connexions service to target support on those who are not planning to stay on at school and to help them obtain a suitable place elsewhere.
The information shared is unlikely to include more personal information such as whether the young person had been in trouble at school or had problems at home. Given that protection and the other safeguards in the process, I do not think there is a risk that young people will be deterred from raising academic or personal problems with school staff.

Nick Gibb: Does the information requested under clause 14 relate only to the Connexions service and not to the general duty in part 1 of the Bill?

Jim Knight: Clause 14 refers to local authorities sharing information. Later clauses refer to Connexions sharing information. Was the hon. Gentleman asking whether the clause referred to that duty?

Nick Gibb: The Minister has just said that the information is necessary to enable Connexions to carry out its service, but I assumed that clause 14 related to the duties in part 1 of the Bill, which are about raising participation, and not merely to the Connexions service.

Jim Knight: Clause 14 relates to part 1 functions—similarly, clause 57 relates to part 2 functions—so it relates to the raising of the participation age, which is what we were discussing with regard to part 1.

Nick Gibb: Why did the Minister focus his arguments about the clause on the fact that Connexions wishes to carry out that service?

Jim Knight: The scale is not significantly different. Parts 1 and 2 cover all young people. The Data Protection Act protections require institutions to let young people and their parents know that the information that is shared will be used for part 1 purposes, so it could be used to identify the fact that they are not fulfilling their duty to participate. The point of sharing the information, in relation to both parts, is to enable Connexions to support young people.

Nick Gibb: Yes, but there is a difference in scale. The Minister is justifying those sweeping information-sharing powers as though they were a minor thing that simply provided services to a student. They are not to do only that; they enforce a duty in part 1. There is a huge difference of scale, so he cannot use that argument to justify the powers in clause 14.

Jim Knight: But the CCIS—and I have been very clear with officials—will not be used for some kind of trawling exercise to enforce the duty. It will provide support to help young people fulfil their duty as in part 1, but it is not meant to assist the local authority in carrying out any kind of enforcement. The hon. Gentleman describes the measures as sweeping powers, but as I have made perfectly clear, they are set out in the Learning and Skills Act 2000.

Nick Gibb: And where is the provision in clause 14 that says that?

Jim Knight: Clause 14 sets out replacement clauses for the 2000 Act. With regard to trawling exercises and enforcement, we are absolutely clear that that does not apply. I have already told the hon. Gentleman clearly that the clause relates to the support that Connexions provides to enable people to fulfil their duty, rather than to any kind of enforcement.
We believe that the nature of the information that will enable Connexions to fulfil its duty of support to all young people means that it is proportionate to have an opt-out approach to consent. We take a slightly different stance on the information that is held by Connexions and may be passed to other agencies. That information includes the basic information and any other information passed on by schools and other learning providers, but it also includes information gathered by Connexions in the course of its interactions with a young person. That latter category of data held by Connexions can be sensitive.
In some cases, because of an individual’s needs, the Connexions service may want to pass specific information to another professional working in a specific area, such as a social worker or a health professional. That would be done on a case-by-case basis and with the active consent of the young person. The young person can agree to information being passed to one professional but not to another. The provisions strike the right balance between enabling the local authority to fulfil its duty of promoting participation by providing the Connexions service and tracking young people effectively, and respecting young people’s right to prevent certain information about them from being shared. That balance that has been proved to work over the past eight years, as these provisions replace measures, as I have repeatedly said, in the Learning and Skills Act 2000 in a largely unaltered form.

Nick Gibb: The Minister has just read out a phrase or sub-clause of a sentence in his brief saying that the information-sharing provision has been included to promote the duty to participate. If this is simply about providing information for the Connexions service, I cannot understand why there are two different clauses—clause 14 relating to part 1, and clause 57 relating to support services—saying the same thing:. Why have two identical clauses in different parts of the Bill?

Jim Knight: We have two clauses: one in relation to local authorities and one in relation to Connexions. That is because of the new arrangements between local authorities and Connexions, as the Connexions service is something that local authorities can provide themselves or contract out. The scale is not significantly different from now. There is a new purpose, which is why we have separate clauses, but the powers are not new. They enable local authorities to identify young people, but clause 57 already allows that. Clause 14 is important, because it makes the new purpose clear with regard to the role of local authorities. They cannot perform their part 1 duties if they do not provide support through, for example, Connexions. It is absolutely fundamental that we have these provisions in place. They can promote participation, but they are not meant to enforce it.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for his patience and generosity. In relation to the sensitive information in subsection 3(c), who would make the judgment about whether it should be passed to the local authority? What would be the process of deciding whether that information should be handed over?

Jim Knight: The Connexions service, the schools and institutions, and the local authorities themselves have well established procedures. It would be well known what information is helpful in providing the service. I have set out some of that, including the courses they provide and so on. In the end, the people operating the Connexions services locally or the local authority could make a request for certain information to be passed on and then the consent procedures would kick in.
Finally—hopefully, it is finally—on the subject of the capacity of the CCIS system to perform the new role, both the National Audit Office and the Prime Minister’s delivery unit have commented favourably on the information system. In addition, my Department has reviewed the system’s capabilities for supporting the raising of the participation age—RPA—and while it is always possible to make improvements, I am satisfied that the specification will do the job. Kieran Gordon, who gave evidence to the Committee, offered a very helpful description of how the system works in practice. In addition, he said:
“It is interesting that tracking has improved markedly during the life of Connexions. The percentage of young people who are not known has fallen radically through better engagement with young people.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2008; c. 183, Q420.]
As part of the proposed directions to local authorities provided for in clause 55, local authorities will have to comply with the national specification for CCIS, to ensure vital information flows and availability is safeguarded. CCIS will, of course, need some adaptation to cater for 100 per cent. participation, and that is a key consideration for the RPA implementation work to follow in the next five yearsI hope, although I am not all that optimistic, that in the light of my reasoning and lengthy explanation, hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Nick Gibb: I have to say that I am very unhappy with the Minister’s attempts to justify the provisions. He is extending limited powers that applied to Connexions—an advisory service to help young people with advice on careers and future training—much more widely to promote participation. He makes a distinction between promoting participation and enforcing it. But the Bill makes no such distinction. Clause 14(2) says:
“A local education authority may request information under subsection (1) only for the purpose of enabling or assisting it to exercise its functions under this Part.”
Its functions under that part, which includes every clause that we have debated, relate not only to promoting participation but to enforcing it. The Minister is not correct to say that this is solely about promoting participation and trying to enable the local authority to provide a tailored service to an individual, as it is also about enforcing participation to ensure that young people are attending. That is what part 1 is about. I am also unclear, despite extensive interventions on the Minister by the hon. Member for Yeovil and myself, about the purpose of clause 14(4), which states that sensitive information in subsection (3)(c) about which we are concerned must not be provided if the young person
“has instructed the responsible person not to provide information of that kind”.
If there is no written note from the young person saying that the information should not be provided, according to the Bill, the educational institution can provide it.
The Minister said that the Data Protection Act provisions required active consent from the pupil before that information can be provided, but on probing, he fell back on the explanation that it required written instructions from the pupil that the information should not be provided. Those things do not stack up, and he has been unable to tell the Committee chapter and verse which provisions in the Data Protection Act require active consent from the pupil. I think that he is playing fast and loose with the provisions, although I hate to be so argumentative in making my point.

Jim Knight: I apologise to the Committee if I have not been able to satisfy it in respect of the minutiae of how the provision works. I would be very happy to set out the technicalities in a note to the Committee. If hon. Members are not happy with the technicalities that I set out, we can return to the matter on Report.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that assurance and I am sure that we will return to this matter on Report. I have asked the Minister quite explicitly, if I were an educational institution and had a request from a local authority to provide sensitive educational information, whether I would be required to obtain consent from the pupil. His answer was no: there had to be written instructions from the pupil, and the institution would not have to seek that consent. That concern underlies the amendment, and that is why I will press it to a Division.

Jim Knight: Just to clarify my point that these powers are to be used for support rather than enforcement, the powers in clause 18 on guidance make it extremely clear that that will be the case. There are further measures in clause 39(5)(a) and (b), which set that out in a little more detail. We will come on to those provisions.

Nick Gibb: I do not regard guidance, which is a tertiary form of legislation that we do not scrutinise and which has no real power over primary legislation, as a safeguard, particularly as the Committee has not seen a draft of that guidance. I remain unconvinced and very unhappy about the Minister’s response. As a consequence, I will press the amendment to a Division.

David Laws: I am grateful, Mr. Bercow, for your patience, as we have not made quite the progress that you hoped for. I hope that we will make more rapid progress once we have dealt with this extremely important clause.
Perhaps I should start by saying what we would be happy to see in the clause, rather than raise further problems with it. Given the principles behind the Bill, we would be happy to see a situation in which basic information relating to pupils’ names, addresses and so forth, together with core educational information, are transferred to a local authority to help it discharge its responsibilities under the legislation.
We have concerns about the passing over of very sensitive information. I have cited some examples from my constituency where schools often hold extremely sensitive information about young people that they have gained not because of their strict educational responsibilities, but during course of contact between children and particular teachers. Subsection (3)(c) will allow that information to be passed to a local authority unless an individual has instructed the responsible person in the educational institution not to do so.
When pressed, the Minister thought that he was giving me reassurance, but he actually causing me further concern about the types of case that I was already concerned about. For example, he said that a case in which information was held on a school database concerning a young person who had been, or claimed to have been, sexually abused by a parent, and had developed mental health or other problems, could be passed over as a result of the provisions in the clause. That is a very sensitive matter.
Our basic position is that, provided the information is clearly relevant to educational and social support, without any controversy, it would be reasonable for it to be passed over; although some of the opt-out, opt-in issues raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton remain. However, if the information is much more sensitive, particularly in circumstances where establishing its importance to the local authority in discharging its responsibilities is more controversial, we would want a failsafe mechanism to protect the transfer of that information, and to ensure that explicit permission had to be sought and given; rather than the open-ended provision at the end of subsection (4) that states that an individual who does not wish the information to be passed over must give an instruction for it not to be.

John Hayes: The nature of the information is likely to be sensitive, given that Connexions will be its repository. We have heard both at this stage of the Committee and in the evidence sessions that the Connexions database is at the fulcrum of the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Connexions holds immensely sensitive information about a large number of young people. Surely that exacerbates his fears?

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that, inevitably, local authorities and schools may consider a lot of sensitive information relevant to the question of establishing a young person’s support needs. When pressed on those matters, the Minister told us a number of things. He said that the data transfer could affect a large proportion, or even all, of the cohort. We accept that a smaller proportion will be affected in relation to the transfer of very sensitive information, but none of us really knows quite how small that will be. He said that the information will be required to be passed over by the education establishment while the pupil or student is on the roll and not afterwards, which also raises concerns. If the information has to be passed over at that time rather than afterwards, it creates more of a presumption that more data will be transferred.
For example, a young person post-16 may not comply with the duty in the Bill to be in education or training, and a local authority might get involved at that stage. It might start to think: why is this person not complying with the provisions of the Bill? What are their support needs? What can we find out about them that will help us to understand their needs and ensure that we put that support in place? If the presumption is that accessing such information, which is often held by the education establishment, must be done while the pupil or student is at that establishment, there is a greater risk that the local authority would expect the school to provide as much information as possible that might be relevant in future to assessing those support needs. I fear that quite a lot of information of a sensitive nature might transfer from the schools to the local authorities during that process.
How will the approval work, and how will it be given? A small number of people with high needs will have a Connexions adviser, and they may have a conversation of the type that the Minister cited, leading to the question of whether the young person would be happy for information about their drug abuse to be passed on as a result of that conversation. However, we could be talking about a much larger number of young people.
I was trying to elicit from the Minister a flavour of how he thinks that permission will be given in practice. Could a teacher or head teacher come to a class in the final year at school, or whichever year is relevant, and say, “We are going to download all these boring data to the local authority to help with your future education needs. Let me know if there is a problem with that, and now over to the maths test”? Or perhaps it could take place in assembly. Perhaps I am being too cynical and simplistic, but it is unclear on a human scale how the permission will be stored.
That is directly relevant to what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton seeks to do, which is to firm up the provision so that it is not left to people to have specifically to opt out when they realise that the data are sensitive. However, if the data are sensitive, people will have to opt in with some type of agreement. The more that the Government want to make subsection (3)(c) open-ended, so that lots of potentially sensitive data can be transferred, the more it is necessary to have something stronger than the current opt-out, which might not turn out to be as effective as the Minister says.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is clearly concerned about sensitive information. He is right to be so. We are all concerned about that. We are very clear that sensitive information about child abuse, for example, will not be routinely shared. It may be shared with a personal adviser in school to support the young person, but a teacher or case worker would have to seek the young person’s consent for that unless there were safeguarding considerations, in which case the safeguarding legislation would come into play. The hon. Gentleman must also bear in mind that there will be a build-up of information from the age of 13 when the initial record is created in CCIS. That is then subject to the annual notice under the Data Protection Act, which I set out in my speaking note.

David Laws: I am still confused about how the provision will operate. Let us take the case of a young person who has allegedly been sexually abused by a parent. That information would be held on some kind of database within a school. The abuse would clearly have a big impact on the young person, which could mean that they often truanted from school or that they had mental health or other problems. If the school was aware of the young person’s duty to be in education and training post-16 and it was aware of the young person’s problems as a consequence of those allegations, would it not, under this part of the Bill, feel some obligation to pass that information over? Is that not precisely the type of information that needs cast-iron protection to ensure that there is not an opt-out, but an opt-in? The very fact that the Minister said, in response to my question, that he would regard such information as very relevant to a young person’s potential future support and educational needs indicates that it is the kind of information that could flow over as a consequence of the provisions.
I put it to the Minister that, at the moment, there are no adequate protections in the measure for some of the data transfer that is envisaged. He indicated that he did not have a fundamental problem with the contents of amendment No. 170, which simply seeks to tag to the end of subsection (3)(c) the provision that the information should relate to education and support needs. I admit that even that is a little vague because support needs could be widely defined, but at least there would be a little more clarity about the need to make a strong connection between the information passed over and its relevance to education and support needs. At the moment, the subsection is very open-ended.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is a generous and reasonable man. Does he not see that clause 14 starts with the words,
“Relevant information about a pupil or student”?
In that case, relevant refers to relevant part 1 of the Bill, so the hon. Gentleman is getting what he wants already.

David Laws: Unfortunately, I do not think that I am getting what I want. The word “relevant” can be enormously open-ended, as the Minister has already indicated in response to questions. For it to be that open-ended, with only the protection at the end of subsection (4) that the information will be passed over unless the person proactively sets out an instruction that it should not be, does not seem to be an adequate protection nor is it a realistic one in the circumstances. Although we understand the need for some of that data to be passed over, and we would want a lot of straightforward data to be passed over in a non-bureaucratic way, we are obliged to be sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. We feel that there needs to be some protection from subsection (3)(c). In addition, I would like to press amendment No. 170 to a separate Division if that is acceptable to you, Mr. Bercow, and to the rest of the Committee.

Nick Gibb: I intend to press the amendment to a Division. Nothing that I have heard from the Minister convinces me to do otherwise.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 170, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert
‘which is relevant to assessing their educational and support needs.’.—[Mr. Laws.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Bercow. The official record of proceedings on Thursday 7 February shows me as not attending. However, I took part in two Divisions on that day, so could the record be amended to show that I did indeed attend that sitting?

John Bercow: An amendment will indeed be made and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a genuine point of order.

David Laws: I beg to move amendment No. 171, in clause 14, page 7, line 37, leave out subsection (4).
I will try not to detain the Committee too long on the amendment, nor shall I contradict the position that I set out in the previous debate, but I want to raise a parallel concern about the way in which the Government are framing their policies in relation to the transfer of information, because as well as running the risk of quite sensitive information being passed over without proper checks, the provisions in subsection (4) allow parents and pupils to opt out of passing some quite basic educational information to the local authority.
This probing amendment is designed to find out why the Government have decided to insert that provision and whether it is simply a manifestation of the fact that subsection (3)(c) is so sweeping in the powers that it could give that protection of this type is necessary. It is designed to tempt the Minister into indicating that there may be a distinction between information that is purely educational—most of us would regard it as sensible for there to be a right to pass over such information—and more sensitive information that might require an opt-in.
In its response to the Bill—a clause-by-clause briefing—the Local Government Association suggests in relation to the subsection that
“This appears to suggest that if parents and/or young people are unwilling to provide information, we”—
the local authorities—
“will not necessarily be able to arrange for the most helpful support to that young person”.
The briefing goes on to state:
“There may be other legal reasons for this, but it does seem potentially unhelpful if we are pursuing the principle that the local authority has a duty to promote participation and support the young person in so doing.”
Previous debates have shown that we do not support the elements of compulsion and criminalisation in the Bill. However, if those duties are to be included in the Bill and if the local authority is to be charged with ensuring that the young person is in an education and training setting, is it sensible for young people and parents who do not want to comply with the measures to have an opt-out from all educational information, other than the minimal information contained in clause 14(3)(a) and (b)? Surely basic educational information should be able to pass without that hindrance and my probing amendment is designed to elicit a response from the Government on that point.

Jim Knight: As the hon. Gentleman has set out, the amendment would remove the right of the young person, or if they are under 16 their parent, to prevent additional information—apart from the young person’s name, address, date of birth and the name and address of their parents—that might be in the learning provider’s possession from being passed on to the local authority. On the face of it, that is a remarkably illiberal amendment, but I accept that it is a probing one and that it does not necessarily reflect the liberal values that the hon. Gentleman has displayed.

David Laws: I cannot let the Minister get away with that. Does he understand that there is a basic difference between raw educational data and the type of sensitive information that we are discussing, on which my party has certainly taken a very liberal line?

Jim Knight: Of course there are distinctions. We make a straightforward distinction between basic information that is not at all sensitive—name and address or date of birth—and other information, whether about education or the more sensitive sorts of information to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The whole point of the subsection about which he is concerned is to distinguish between basic and other information, whether that is in relation to education and training experience or other personal information, in respect of the person’s needs.

Oliver Heald: Let us suppose that the individual concerned is a violent person who has been found carrying weapons in a school. Would that person be able to say, “Well, you can’t pass that information on”? If that is so, it is difficult to see how the local education authority could make a proper risk assessment of that individual and where they might be deployed in the education system.

Jim Knight: In that context, without information, the LEA would not be able to pass on the data, but in that sort of scenario one would expect the enforcement agencies to be called by the police, who would have their own records. If there were an overriding, strong public interest justification for sharing information—whatever it might be—that would come into play. It is difficult to comment on the exact scenario that the hon. Gentleman describes, whereby a number of different agencies would be engaged and would be collecting their own data on individuals and an individual case. They would not be solely reliant in terms of support, as we might be, on an agency’s being able to share information, but it should be on the basis of consent.
Let me address the amendment in more detail. Clause 14 sets out the requirements on learning providers to pass on information, as we have discussed, and replaces section 117 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. In practice, as I said earlier, schools write to parents of all pupils approaching the age of 13 when they are in year 8 to let them know that information about their children will be shared with the Connexions service. That core information covers the young person’s name and address and the name and address of a parent. Schools will also pass on additional information about the young person unless they, or their parent if they are under 16, request that it is not passed on. The information could include the courses that the young person has studied, their grades, attendance or a change of address.
Parents are provided with a form to sign and return to the school if they do not want the additional information to be passed on to Connexions, in which case it would not be. In practice, few currently opt out—less than 10 per cent. In practice, if Connexions did not obtain the additional information from the school but had other contact on a one-to-one basis through a personal adviser, it might acquire the information from the young person through that route.
Clause 14 sets out similar arrangements to those already provided for. It enables learning providers to pass on information to the local authority so that it can fulfil its new responsibilities for delivering Connexions and promoting participation. As happens at present, clause 14 will give young people, or their parents if they are under 16, the right to prevent learning providers from passing on their additional information to the local authority. I hope that in the light of my reasoning the hon. Member for Yeovil will withdraw his amendment.

David Laws: I shall withdraw my amendment, but that is not because I am persuaded. I tabled the amendment simply to highlight the fact that the Government need protection in subsection (4) that creates some impediments to the rational transfer of data, because in other parts of the clause and the Bill excessive powers are granted to allow the transfer of data that we would seek to protect. I hope that we will be able to return to that issue later in our proceedings. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Educational institutions : duty to provide information

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in clause 57, page 30, line 37, at end insert
‘to the extent that fulfilling such duty conforms to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’.
The clause is another data-sharing provision, which we touched on when we debated amendment No. 97. Clause 57 is drafted similarly to clause 14, but it relates to data being shared with the local authority to enable it to supply support services to young people, rather than to promote participation. However, the principle of the information that an educational institution holds being shared with the local authority is the same.
The amendment would ensure that the data-sharing powers are consistent with the European convention on human rights by incorporating article 8 into the clause and requiring it to be consistent with that article, which deals with the right to respect for private and family life. It states:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence...There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The human rights aspect of the Bill, particularly in relation to information-sharing provisions, has been raised by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The right protected by article 8 is a qualified right that can be interfered with, as the Government have done, if that interference has its basis in law, is done to secure a permissible aim set out in the relevant article and is necessary in a democratic society. Interference must fulfil a pressing social need, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to the aims pursued. That is a key aspect. The hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the human rights implications of the Bill were raised in a letter of 20 December, in which he states:
“The Bill contains information supply and sharing provisions in Parts 1 to 4 which raise potential human rights issues, notably the right to respect for private and family life. The Government has referred to some, but not all, of the information supply and sharing provisions in the human rights section of the Explanatory Notes. In particular, whilst the Explanatory Notes state generally that the provisions in Chapter 2 of Part 1 pursue the aim of economic well-being, the Government does not explain specifically, in relation to each of the disclosure provisions, how each provision is both necessary and proportionate to the achievement of that aim.”
The hon. Gentleman specifically asks:
“In relation to each and every information supply and sharing provision...what legitimate aim is sought to be protected...are the provisions necessary to achieve the aim and...are the measures proportionate to that aim?”
He goes on to ask:
“In relation to each and every information supply and sharing provision, what specific safeguards will be in place to ensure their compatibility with article 8 ECHR”?
Thus, the question is: what is the legitimate aim?
The Minister responded in another letter:
“Economic well-being of the country: the information collected will be used for improving the participation and general attainment in education and training of young people by providing appropriate support to individual young people...thereby ensuring a more skilled workforce.”
That, then, is the Minister’s explanation of the legitimate aim of the powers, which, on the face of it, could infringe the human rights convention. On the issue of whether the measure is proportionate, his response is:
“Only by the provision of this information—name, address, date of birth and other information relevant to Connexions services—by schools and colleges can the full group of young people be identified in respect of whom LAs have the duty in clause 54 to make Connexions support services available. This enables Connexions services to provide appropriate IAG”—
information, advice and guidance—
“at an early stage, thereby helping young people to make informed choices that most benefit them.”
The important passage there is the one about the information being relevant to Connexions services. Clause 57(2) states that the information requested must be relevant to the provision of services. However, the information supplied can be any
“information in the institution’s possession about the pupil or student.”
There is nothing in the definition of relevant information that requires it to be confined to the purpose of providing Connexions services. Even if the provisions did confine the information to that purpose, the power would still be very wide, involving supplying details of the academic and personal problems of a student at school or college. I believe that that would be disproportionate to the aim.

Oliver Heald: I support my hon. Friend’s general point, but if the information was about safety—the safety of other pupils—such as the fact that the student had regularly carried a knife and was perhaps the local gang leader, or had inappropriately touched other students, or something of that sort, surely it might be quite important for risk assessment.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is right, and nothing in the amendment would prevent that information from being given, because an exception to the qualified right to respect for private and family life is the prevention of crime. That is one of the exceptions to that sacrosanct right. All the amendment would do is make the Bill conform to article 8 as qualified and as subject to those exceptions. My hon. Friend raises an important point, but I hope that I have convinced him that the information could be supplied if the amendment were accepted. I await the Minister’s response to those important points about human rights.

Jim Knight: It is important for the Committee to note that, on the front of the Bill, we have made a statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the Education and Skills Bill is compatible with convention rights. Clearly, the amendment tests that, and it is perfectly right that it should do so, but I want to be clear from the outset that we think that the measure is compatible with the convention.
Article 8, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, provides for the right to respect for private and family life and that is an important right. I assure him that we have looked closely at the duty in the clause to provide information against that article. I am grateful to him for quoting at length annexe A of my letter responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, because it saves me having to do so. On behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my hon. Friend asked me to set out the aims that we sought to protect and to confirm that, in my view, the provisions were necessary and proportionate. I did that in the letter of 14 January.
The aims of the clause and of other information-sharing clauses that we are discussing are strongly linked to the economic well-being of the individual and of the country, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has explained. The information that is collected will be used to increase participation in education and training by providing appropriate support to individual young people, as provided for by clause 54. That is the context in which clause 57 should be understood. Support services will be provided by local education authorities, which will thereby ensure a more skilled work force, as well as benefits for the individual and society.
It is necessary for educational institutions such as schools and colleges to provide basic information on individual young people to those involved in the provision of support—in other words, to Connexions. Without that, Connexions would not have basic information about its core client group and would be unable to provide young people with information, advice and guidance tailored to their needs. We know that receiving appropriate information, advice and guidance is essential to achieving the aim of increasing participation and that it meets a pressing social need. Our witnesses reinforced that message, even if we were not already convinced of its importance.
It is only by the provision of basic information by educational institutions, as set out in the clause—name, date of birth, address, and name and address of parent—that Connexions service providers can identify the full group of young people to whom local authorities have a duty to provide support under clause 54. Information other than that basic information must not be released to Connexions when pupils or students over 16 or the parents of under-16s have instructed the institution not to release it, as we have discussed at length.
In all cases, whether we are dealing with the basic information or the further information, I stress that it must be relevant to the provision of the Connexions service and it may be provided only to a person involved in the provision of the Connexions service. The passing on of the information is under the control of a “responsible person”, as defined in subsection (5); for example, in a school, that would be the governing body. Those provisions, together with the ability of parents and young people to withdraw their consent for the passing on of all but the basic information, are very important safeguards.
In addition, the Data Protection Act will govern how Connexions service providers can use the information that they obtain under the clause, including how they acquire, store and dispose of it. Any unlawful disclosure or use of the information will be subject to the offences and associated penalties under the Data Protection Act. We will discuss amendments that deal with offences in relation to data sharing later.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was content to sign the necessary statement under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. We are satisfied that the information flow is justified by our aim of improving participation in education and training, and that the provision of information is no more than is necessary to achieve that aim. My conclusion is that the amendment would not add anything to what is already provided in the Human Rights Act. On the basis that it is superfluous, and that we do not think that superfluity in legislation is a good thing, I invite the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: If superfluity were excluded from legislation passed by this House, Bills would be significantly shorter. However, I say to the Minister that to say that the statement on the front of the Bill is evidence that it complies with the Human Rights Act is rather odd. He could not exactly write a statement on the front of the Bill that in his view its provisions are incompatible with the European convention on human rights, so of course he is going to say that it is compatible. We have yet to hear from the hon. Member for Hendon whether the Joint Committee on Human Rights believes that the Bill is consistent with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. The Minister confirmed in his response to the debate that the protection available to the pupil or student is provided by an opt-out rather than by active consent, just as he said in evidence to the Committee a few weeks ago.
I hope that the Joint Committee will examine our proceedings, particularly our sittings today and immediately before the recess, before coming to a conclusion about whether the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act and the European convention. It would be better to incorporate the amendment into the Bill, because when interpreting it the courts would have an explicit provision to ensure compliance with article 8. However, the purpose of the amendment was to air the subject, and I see no need to press it to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Information: supply by the Secretary of State

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 15, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
‘(1A) Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the Secretary of State regards the provision of the information to be proportionate to the aims of the local education authority in the exercise of its functions under this Part.’.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in clause 15, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
‘(1A) Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the local education authority requesting the information regards the provision of the information to be proportionate to the aims of the local education authority in the exercise of its functions under this Part.’.
No. 106, in clause 61, page 33, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the Secretary of State regards the provision of the information to be proportionate to the aims of the local education authority for the purpose of the provision of services in pursuance of section 54 or 56(1)(b).’.

Nick Gibb: Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State the power to supply social security information to a local education authority about a young person. It is clear that that information comprises simply the name and address of the young person, or that of the parents, held by the Department for Work and Pensions. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State supplied data to the LEA only if both parties regarded the provision of such information to be proportionate to the aims of the LEA as defined in the Bill.
In a letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Minister gave as his reason for that provision the fact that young people tended to move around frequently. He said that from the age of 16 young people become a lot more mobile and that such information—the social security data—is what enables local authorities to keep track of them. However, the Bill gives no guarantee that a young person’s private information will be shared only when that proportionate needs test is met.
As drafted, the Bill says that the Secretary of State can provide any information that the local authority would find useful in carrying out the functions placed upon it. However, such information might well be transferred even when the young person in question was not frequently changing address, as the Secretary of State said should be the case, or if there was no other pressing need. If the Minister is comfortable that the power will be used only in a proportionate way, he should have no problem in accepting the amendments.

Jim Knight: The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton proposes to include in the clause a specific test of proportionality. I suggest that such amendments are not necessary to ensure that consideration is given to the proportionality of supply of information.
The Secretary of State and the local authority must both act in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights, according to which any interference with the right to respect and family life must be necessary and no more than is necessary to achieve the desired aim. That requires a public body to ensure, before putting in place arrangements to release information that potentially infringes that right, that the information released is no more than is necessary for the purposes it will serve—that it is proportionate. That is why the powers in these clauses restrict the information that may be shared and what purposes it can serve. In clause 15, the purpose is to enable or assist local authorities to fulfil their duties to promote participation and identify young people not participating. In clause 61, the purpose is the provision of Connexions services.
The aim of increasing participation in education and training justifies the supply of information provided for in the clauses, but every public body must satisfy itself that the extent of the information that it releases to local authorities under the provisions is proportionate to those benefits. Local authorities must also be satisfied that their requests for information are proportionate. The information that will be provided under the clauses is an essential source of basic identification information that will serve to populate the Connexions database. Together with other sources, it will be fundamental to Connexions’s ability to track young people effectively and to provide them with appropriate and timely support.
The hon. Gentleman referred again to the letter I sent to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I am grateful to him for, as ever, assiduously doing his homework. The letter sets out our analysis and justification of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill. Local authorities are taking on new functions of promoting participation and identifying young people who are not participating so, clearly, the information sharing needs to continue so as not to jeopardise the effectiveness of the Connexions service. In the light of that reasoning, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I can see no reason why the term “proportionate” cannot be included in the Bill to make it explicit and clear that the supply of information should be proportionate. However, the purpose of the amendment was to air those issues in the Committee. Having done so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 15, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
‘( ) Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the person to whom the information relates has given written consent that such information can be supplied.’.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 104, in clause 61, page 33, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the person to whom the information relates has given written consent that such information can be supplied.’.
No. 105, in clause 61, page 33, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) Any person about whom information is supplied under subsection (1) shall have the right to examine any relevant information requested by a local authority or other person before that information is provided by the Secretary of State to the authority or other person.’.
No. 102, in clause 61, page 33, line 19, after ‘unless’ insert
‘consent has been given by the person to whom the information relates and’.

John Hayes: It is good to come back to our labours after a brief respite from scrutinising the Bill with the assiduity and diligence that the House demands and which our constituents deserve, is it not?
The debate this morning focused on the Opposition’s sensitivity to the storage and use of data. The Minister repeatedly assured us that the information is solely for advising young people through the Connexions service but, when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, he was forced to admit that the information is actually about local authorities fulfilling their duties under the Bill and, of course, those duties specifically include the promotion of participation. Given that enforcement is the end of the process, the Minister will understand that we continue to have doubts. That is why we have tabled the amendments, which we will discuss at some length, I hope.
It would probably be helpful if I said a few words about the explanatory notes on clause 15, because they make clear why we feel that the amendments are important. The notes state:
“The Secretary of State, under clause 15, may supply social security information to enable a local education authority to fulfil its functions under this Part”,
as we have heard. They continue:
“The clause sets out under what circumstances further disclosure of this information is permissible, under what circumstances it is an offence and the penalty that may be imposed”.
Indeed, the explanatory notes to clause 61, which is relevant to this group of amendments, say that the powers under the Bill enable the
“Secretary of State to supply information to a local...authority or other person for the purposes of the provision of Connexions services for young people. Specifically, it gives the Secretary of State the power to supply social security information in relation to young people. In order to identify young persons, it may be necessary to use information held by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (for example, as supplied to JobCentre Plus by a young person claiming benefits). In this way, Connexions services can maintain accurate and comprehensive records”.
The point is that that can be done without the young person’s explicit consent. Amendment No. 22 would provide that the information should be supplied only
“if the person to whom the information relates has given written consent that such information can be supplied”.
Amendment No. 104 says much the same, and amendment No. 105 would provide that the young person concerned should have
“the right to examine any relevant information requested by a local authority or other person before that information is provided by the Secretary of State to the authority or other person.”
If the purpose of the supply of information is entirely to provide advice and guidance to assist the business of promoting participation, it seems irrefutable that permission should form part of the process. If someone wished to receive advice, they would be happy for information to be passed between the agencies that might be best placed to offer it. On that basis, I expect the Minister to find the amendments highly seductive. They build upon the sentiment that he has expressed that the provision is about helping people, taking them with us, encouraging them and providing them with all the guidance they need.
All the amendments would ensure that personally sensitive information could be disclosed only with an individual’s consent. That is especially important given recent history—the Committee will not need reminding of it, but I shall do so none the less. The Government have had a pretty poor track record. I do not blame the Minister, although I have no doubt that he accepts collective responsibility for the failures and the Government’s very sorry record on handling data. My wife received a letter saying that her own personal data had been spread far and wide without permission or due cause. You can imagine the shock waves that went through the Hayes household as a result, Mr. Bercow.
In that context, it is not unreasonable for parliamentarians to have doubts about the storage and transmission of sensitive data. As the hon. Member for Yeovil made clear earlier, that data may be very sensitive. I intervened on him to point out that Connexions deals not only with advice and guidance on careers, but with a number of other aspects of support for young people, including advice on drugs, sexual health and other highly personal matters. Given that the Connexions database is to lie at the heart of the process, hon. Members will understand that our concerns and doubts are exaggerated by the fact that we know that many young people currently dealing with Connexions are doing so because they have some kind of challenge or problem. The purpose of the amendment is clear, and its attractiveness to the Government should be plain.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend envisage that the individual concerned would be able to ask for reassurances about how information would be treated in its transfer from the Secretary of State to a local authority? For example, would it be possible for the individual to say, “Look, I don’t want this just to be stuck in the Royal Mail on a disc,” or, “I don’t want it to be couriered round London on the back of a motorbike.”? Does he feel that we should ask for assurances that the information will be safe?

John Hayes: Or, indeed, left in the back of a car on a laptop computer, only to be stolen. My hon. Friend’s points are reasonable. How information is stored and the security measures and protocols that are put in place are critical. The more involvement and empowerment we can offer individuals as a means of providing the necessary checks and balances that my hon. Friend suggests, the better.
As I said, the amendments are clear; their attractiveness to the Government is plain, and I believe that they are extremely helpful. Given the tone and tenor of today’s debate so far—my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who is well known in this House and increasingly in this Committee for his generosity, even temper and measured approach to all that he does, became at some point if not alarmed then certainly gravely concerned—I think that the Minister had better accept these amendments as a way of re-establishing the measured mood that my hon. Friend normally exemplifies.

Oliver Heald: May I make just one point? It is one thing for this type of information to be transferred from the Secretary of State to the local authority if somebody has gone missing and if it is an individual case where it is necessary for, say, the Connexions service to have information about where someone is. I would not be so concerned personally about an individual exercise of that sort. However, if what is being proposed is that all the information for all the young people in the age group concerned will just be sent en bloc to local authorities right around the country, without any event that triggers that transfer such as a person not being able to be found or whatever, I would be concerned.
Can the Minister give some assurance that the exercise will concentrate on individuals, that the information transferred will be the information relating to an individual, and that this process will not just involve mass transfers of information between Government Departments? While he is at it, can he also assure us about the security of the method of transfer? I ask that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, there have recently been some examples of very shoddy security.

Jim Knight: It is obviously a delight for the Committee to listen again to the dulcet tones and poetry of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings after such a long interlude, and we were all sad to hear of the loss of Mrs. Hayes’s data.
Provision in clause 61 empowers Government Departments to pass information about a young person to the Connexions service in order to support young people to participate. Amendment No. 105 would mean that the young person would have the right to examine that information before it was released. As I have explained in relation to previous amendments, young people already have rights of access to personal data held about them under the Data Protection Act 1998, and they can make a request under the Act for a copy of any personal information held by any organisation. They could make this same request of Jobcentre Plus and the Connexions provider before or after any information had been passed.
Let me address the question about data transfers that the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for North-East Hertfordshire have raised. In practice, the social security information that is shared is that of 16 and 17-year-olds and it takes place locally between the local Jobcentre Plus and the local Connexions service. It is shared on an individual basis, when a 16 or 17-year-old turns up at the local Connexions or Jobcentre Plus offices. It is a requirement if someone is in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance that they are registered with Connexions. Effectively, the individual must have a form stamped by Connexions that says that they have been registered with the service; that is a mechanism by which that transfer of information takes place, via the individual themselves. There is also a national feed on young people aged 18 and 19 on a consent basis.
That information is uploaded on to the national Connexions customer information system website, which is managed by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and the data are then separated into individual area files and distributed via the website to local Connexions services. The website is, of course, secure and not open to public access. Only named individuals with appropriate access rights within the Connexions service are able to access data for their own area. All CCIS databases conform to the requirements of the Data Protection Act. I hope that that gives hon. Members all the information that they need on data transfer.
Turning to the matter of obtaining young people’s consent before disclosing information, as I said in response to previous amendments and just now, it is a condition of 16 and 17-year-olds claiming certain benefits that they are in contact with Connexions, so that we can be sure they are getting the help and support that they need. On the vast majority of occasions, the young person is happy to register voluntarily with Connexions, so personal information does not need to be passed without their consent. Where a young person is reluctant to register, it is necessary that Jobcentre Plus has the power in the clause to pass to Connexions these young people’s name, address and date of birth without obtaining consent. This enables Connexions personal advisors to contact the young person to ensure that they have access to appropriate support. That will be increasingly important as we move towards full participation.
Eighteen to 19-year-olds do not have to be in contact with Connexions in order to claim certain benefits. It is none the less vital that Connexions learns about them from Jobcentre Plus as soon as they claim, as they will invariably not be in employment, education or training. We will have the best chance of re-engaging them if Connexions is in a position to provide them with appropriate support without delay. Although in practice the vast majority of 18 and 19-year-old claimants, like other young people, view the service provided by Connexions positively and give consent, there are a few young people—often those most disaffected—who may be more resistant. The power provided by the clause means that Connexions can identify and inform them again of the type of support available.
Accepting the amendments would add bureaucracy and complexity to the system, and could delay or prevent Connexions from intervening to support young people. For the Connexions service to work effectively, it needs accurate and up-to-date information on who young people are, what they are doing and how to contact them. The information that Jobcentre Plus provides is particularly valuable because young people become much more mobile from the age of 16 and are therefore more difficult to track. In essence, we can intervene much earlier if we have early information transfer rather than having to go through a process of obtaining consent in every case.
Returning to the point made about the Data Protection Act, in my view, the protection is adequate and we do not need to add to the legislation, either by explicitly requiring consent or by inserting other forms of protection in the Bill. I hope that, in light of my reasoning, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who is a reasonable man, will withdraw his amendments.

John Hayes: I do not buy the Minister’s argument because the essence of his case was that when someone claims jobseeker’s allowance, there is an automatic process by which they are referred to Connexions, which is about trying to marry them with appropriate opportunities. However, they are making an application for jobseeker’s allowance: by their own choice, of their own will, they are beginning a process which is, understandably, about both receiving a benefit and attempting to get a job, with the advice that goes with that.
My anxiety about the provisions in the Bill is that the duties in the Bill on local authorities are not solely about providing advice and guidance; they are about promoting and, indeed, ensuring participation. The process is therefore very different, and it is not entirely reasonable to apply the same logic to such a very different process. The measure is not necessarily about the voluntary acceptance of advice; it is about the promotion of a duty to participate. To that end, I think that the protection—the check and balance, as I described it—of asking for people’s permission to share information about them is entirely reasonable.

Jim Knight: I will have one more go at persuading the hon. Gentleman. Does he accept that, by definition, someone who is claiming benefits is not in education, employment or training and that it is desirable for them to be so? If he does, he will acknowledge that it is desirable to ensure that we have taken every opportunity to give them the support that they need. Therefore, a simple transfer of information, so that we can intervene as early as possible to give them support and to get them off benefits and into reasonable training, with or without work, is good. The provisions are therefore proportionate.

John Hayes: I start from the assumption that increasing participation is good. We have established that in our deliberations thus far. We have found common ground because we think that it is good for young people to be trained, guided and advised, to encourage them to increase their employability. There is no doubt about that, but the issue that has created disagreement throughout the Committee is compulsion. The reason why there is sensitivity this morning about information is the relationship between information and compulsion—the way in which the information might be used. That sensitivity has permeated the discussions about amendments this morning.

Jim Knight: I shall have another go. We will make it clear that the CCIS is to be used for support, not for enforcement.

John Hayes: That is what the Minister said when he intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton half an hour ago. The Minister described the clarity of the guidance that he will offer. However, the amendment would introduce an extra protection to the Bill, and given that he has told us that the vast majority of young people would readily agree to the information being shared because it would be in their interests, and so, given that he is dealing only with a few—those were his words—young people who might be recalcitrant, he is effectively saying that he would resist the amendment, which would check the excessive use of information and power that it might engender, for the sake of a handful of young people who would not agree to have the information shared anyway.
Participation is best ensured by the encouragement, willingness and commitment of young people to engage—to be part of a process. A critical part of that process is advice and guidance, and part of advice and guidance is sharing information properly. Of course, we believe all that, but we are not sure that a degree of commitment is not assisted by an amendment suggesting that if one does not want the information shared, it will not be, and that if one does, one has to give written permission.
That is not such a big deal; it is not an alarming change to the Government’s proposals. It is a modest, sensible and cautious change that the Government might be wise to accept. Unless the Minister can offer to me more than he did to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, which was a fairly woolly pledge of guidance, we shall press amendment No. 22 to a vote, as a means of illustrating that sovereignty in such matters lies with young people, and that their rights must be protected.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in clause 61, page 33, line 6, leave out from ‘authority’ to ‘in’ in line 7.
No more dulcet tones or poetry in this set of amendments, Mr. Bercow. Very briefly, clause 61 effectively replicates the provisions of clause 15, but the information shared by clause 61 is for the purpose of the Connexions service rather than that of promoting participation.
The wording does, however, differ between the two clauses. Clause 61 says:
“The Secretary of State may supply information, including social security information, to a local education authority or other person involved in the provision of services for young persons”,
whereas clause 15 says:
“The Secretary of State may supply information, including social security information, to a local education authority in England for the purpose of enabling or assisting the authority”.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove the phrase “or other person” from clause 61(1). It is too wide a description of who else can be supplied with this confidential information. Perhaps the Minister could spell out whom he has in mind and we can then refine the phrasing to incorporate the specific entity, or type of entity, he has in mind.

Jim Knight: The amendment would limit the transfer of information to that passed directly to local authorities. It would therefore prevent information being passed directly to Connexions service providers where the local authority is not providing the service itself. That, in essence, is my worry.
Clause 61(1) says:
“The Secretary of State may supply information, including social security information, to a local education authority or other person involved in the provision of services for young persons in pursuance of section 54 or 56(1)(b) for the purpose of the provision of those services.”
Clause 54 defines support services provided by local education authorities. Clause 56(1)(b) defines the provision of services for young persons or relevant adults.
No doubt we will return to this when we consider part 2 of the Bill, which deals with the transfer to local authorities of responsibility for the Connexions service, but it is important that we say that this transfer is planned to take place. As local authorities start planning how to deliver Connexions services, we encourage them to look for the best potential providers, including those in the voluntary and community sector and in the private sector.
Some organisations have a splendid track record with particular groups of vulnerable young people—several members of the Committee have been particularly concerned about that—and it is important we use their expertise in delivering Connexions services. Many existing Connexions partnerships were doing a good job, so we wanted authorities to be able to make arrangements with the existing partnership, if they concluded, in accordance with their procurement rules, that that was best for the area. I therefore do not want to do anything to prevent those arrangements from continuing. In addition, they are an important part of freedoms and flexibilities the centre—the Government—have promised to local government. It is vital that Connexions, whether delivered directly by a local authority or under contractual arrangements by other providers, can provide the right support quickly to young people. If the information that may be disclosed under these clauses could be passed directly only to local authorities, it would almost certainly lead to delays in the provision of that support in most local authority areas. I hope that that is straightforward enough for the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton in explaining what the purpose is behind this clause.

Oliver Heald: Why is the word “involved” used, rather than “provided”? Why does it not say, “Or other person providing services for young persons”? What is “involved in”? That sounds a vague, loose sort of term for a Bill.

Jim Knight: My recollection is that we have used that term because there may be a contracted provider that also works with a third party, perhaps one of the organisations that we took evidence from, such as Fairbridge, to help it deliver the Connexions service. It may be appropriate for organisations that are not the direct provider but are involved in the delivery of the service to share some of this information and have it shared with them.

Nick Gibb: I was assured, but now I am becoming less assured. Does that mean that anybody who purports to be involved in helping young people in this field is entitled to have access to this sensitive information?

Jim Knight: No, I do not think that it is anyone who purports to be. It would have to be someone where it is relevant. We have discussed the notions of people’s responsibilities under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 and the various responsibilities on public bodies as they pass data to be satisfied that it is proportionate and relevant. Therefore it would not be an organisation that “purports” to be but one that is genuinely involved in the provision of the service. In respect of the word and the specific question from the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, we want some form of contract in order for them to be involved. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton too and that on that basis he will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful. The Minister has hastily brought back his argument from the brink by adding that assurance that there should be some form of contract. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire so wisely pointed out, that word “involved” would enable any person who purported to be helping young people to have access to this very sensitive information. There is a tendency in all Governments to give themselves the benefit of the doubt in the wording of extensive provisions relating to powers for Government and local authority bodies. It would have been better if the provision had been worded more tightly to confine it to those that had a contract with the local authority in the provision of services in pursuance of clause 54.
The purpose of Committees is to debate these issues and get the wording tightened. I should be grateful if the Minister could think about this provision and perhaps come back on Report with tighter wording. He has to an extent defined and refined the meaning of “other person involved”. On the basis that the matter has been aired and we have some helpful words from the Minister on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Information: supply by public bodies

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 16, page 8, line 44, at end insert—
‘(1A) Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the relevant person or body mentioned in subsection (2) regards the provision of the information to be proportionate to the fulfilment of the aims of the local education authority in the exercise of its functions under this Part.’.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 24, in clause 16, page 8, line 44, at end insert—
‘(1A) Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the local education authority requesting the information regards the provision of the information to be proportionate to the aims of the local education authority in the exercise of its functions under this Part.’.
No. 113, in clause 62, page 34, line 5, at end insert—
‘(1A) Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the request for information is proportionate to the purpose of providing services in pursuance of section 54 or 56(1)(b).’.

Nick Gibb: Clause 16 is the most terrifying of all the data-sharing clauses in the Bill. It is made more terrifying still by the words in the explanatory notes. The clause says that any of the state organisations listed in subsection (2) can supply information that they hold on a 16 or 17-year-old to the local authority to help the authority fulfil the duties that the Bill imposes on it. The organisations are a local authority, the Learning and Skills Council for England, a primary care trust, a strategic health authority, a chief officer of police, a local probation board, and a youth offending team. Information could therefore include a person’s health records, their criminal records, their involvement with the youth offending team and details of how such programmes are working.
One might think that there were rules and regulations to prevent certain aspects of a person’s health records from being disclosed, but we then have the chilling words on page 10 of the explanatory notes, which state:
“Clause 16 sets out which other public bodies may share information about a young person with a local education authority in order for it to fulfil its duty. The purpose of the clause is to allow public bodies to provide information to local education authorities where other statutory provisions would prevent their doing so.”
All the sections in all the Acts over the years that were designed to safeguard the confidentiality of sensitive personal information held by GPs, hospitals, the probation service and the police will therefore be rendered worthless for 16 and 17-year-olds as a result of this one clause in the Bill.
As we have debated, the provisions in clause 16, together with all the other information-sharing provisions, have attracted the interest of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee is looking at the Bill and is concerned about whether such provisions are consistent with the right to respect for private and family life.
The Minister responded at length to those concerns, but on whether the measures in clause 16 are proportionate to the Government’s aims, he said:
“The information that public bodies hold is crucial to ensuring that the data in the database used by Connexions is accurate. Not having this information leaves a risk that the support offered is not the most appropriate for a young person; some agencies may have dealings with a particular young person but would be unable to share that information with the Connexions service.”
The implication is that the data are simply being used by Connexions to help advise young people. If that were the case, it would still be disproportionate and would, at the very least, necessitate the young person’s consenting to information about his health or involvement with the police being supplied. Clause 16 is not, however, just about the Connexions service; that would be the case if were debating clause 61. Clause 16 relates to
“enabling or assisting the authority to exercise its functions under this Part”—
that is, its duty to promote participation. That is far wider than the duties in clause 54.
The Minister says:
“some agencies may have dealings with a particular young person but would be unable to share that information with the Connexions service.”
As I said, we are not talking just about the Connexions service. However, some of the agencies that have dealings with a young person should not be able to share information with Connexions or, indeed, with the local authority or other agencies. Health records and details of involvement with the police should be sacrosanct. We await the Joint Committee’s report, but I have serious concerns about the Bill’s data-sharing provisions in general and clause 16 in particular. I am alarmed by the cavalier response in the Minister’s letter to the hon. Member for Hendon.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 introduced into clause 16 the requirement that the information requested is proportionate to the Government’s aims, and amendment No. 13 introduces a similar provision into clause 62. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights protects the rights to private and family life, and that is a qualified right, as we debated on the previous clause. The Government can breach that right, provided that the breach has a basis in law and is done to secure one of the permissible aims set out in paragraph 2 of article 8. According to that paragraph, a breach may be made for reasons of
“national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The other condition is that a breach is
“necessary in a democratic society”,
which means that it must fulfil a pressing social need and must be proportionate to the Government’s aims, and that is the consideration that the amendments would introduce into the Bill. They introduce a requirement that a breach of article 8 must be made for wider social aims and be proportionate to those aims.
It is interesting that the Government have included that requirement in clause 35 on parenting orders. Clause 35(8) says:
“The second condition is that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.”
That is a clear reference to the human rights legislation for a lesser breach of human rights—attending a residential course—than that contained in the sharing of sensitive personal information.
The Minister said that that provision was superfluous in relation to these clauses. Is it not, therefore, superfluous in relation to clause 35? Perhaps the drafters of the legislation in chapter 4 have a more profound understanding of the importance of human rights and the right to a private and family life than the drafters of this part of the Bill, who take a less sanguine view of the importance of these matters.

David Laws: I am not sure I would say that I am terrified by the clause because it takes an awful lot to terrorise and terrify a Liberal Democrat. However, I am extremely worried about the contents of what is a sweeping clause, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton explained. I am very attracted to the amendments that he has tabled. If we do not receive a satisfactory response from the Minister, I hope that he will press the amendment to a Division.
The clause gives open-ended powers to a wide range of authorities that go well beyond the education sector and will allow the release of information to a local authority or to persons or bodies that have responsibilities under the Bill. This matter takes us back to some of our earlier concerns about the type of data that are likely to pass backwards and forwards as a consequence of trying to support young people in education and training and in meeting the obligations imposed by the Bill. I do not want to anticipate the questions that I will have for the Minister when debating amendment No. 60, which deals with the bodies that have a responsibility for health matters. I think that there is a need for more adequate protection against the abuse of these powers than is in the clause.
I would like the Minister to clarify two points. Will he indicate which of these powers are currently available for young people below the age of 16? In other words, are there powers such as these for under-16s who are not in education or training—they may be persistently absent or truanting—so that information from such bodies can be accessed in order that educational establishments can exercise their existing responsibilities?
On a specific point, is information held by employees of the organisations that are listed in the clause that is held not in their workplaces but at home addresses covered by the data protections that the Minister indicated earlier? There have been cases in my constituency where very specific and sensitive allegations have been made about young people, often in relation to child protection issues, and data have been held in a home setting by employees of organisations such as those listed. Will the data protections that the Minister referred earlier relate to such data?
I hope that the Minister will respond to the wise words of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and his cautionary note and that, by the end of the Minister’s speech, we will be less terrified, or in my case less moderately worried, about the contents of the clause. If not, it may be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to press the amendment to a Division.

Jim Knight: As with the other provisions that we have discussed under this chapter, local authorities will use the information that they receive from other public bodies to help them identify young people who are not participating. It will be used to identify the most appropriate support for those young people so that they can be helped back into learning as soon as possible. As we have discussed, the sharing of information is critical to the effective provision of services to young people and it enables coherent services to be delivered. The amendments propose specific references, in clauses 16 and 62, to the need for the supply of information by public bodies to be proportionate to the purpose for which it is requested. As we discussed with the amendments to clauses 15 and 61, article 8 of the European convention on human rights requires that information can be supplied only as far as is necessary and proportionate to the purposes that it will serve, which are to enable or assist local authorities to fulfil their duties to promote participation and identify young people not participating and to provide the Connexions service——

John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight: I will shortly, but let me finish my paragraph.
My letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights details our consideration of the aims and proportionality of the provisions. Public bodies such as those listed in clauses 16 and 62 may be providing services to a young person that would be relevant to the support that young person is receiving from the Connexions service. Disclosure of information would take place only if it was proportionate to the aim of increasing participation in education and training.

John Hayes: There we have it. Having spent two hours telling us that the only purpose, or at least the only serious purpose, for collecting and sharing this information was to provide advice and guidance through the Connexions service, the Minister then reads a pre-prepared note, which I presume he wrote last night, which says that the purpose of collecting and sharing this information is to promote, and indeed enforce, participation. So it is not reasonable to suggest that this is entirely about efficacy; this is about enforcement and thus the tone of the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend—

John Bercow: Order. I have counselled against the tendency towards an increasing prolixity in interventions, of which I am afraid that was a rather distinctive example.

Jim Knight: I say to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that at no point did I mention enforcement. What I said was
“which are to enable or assist local authorities to fulfil their duties to promote participation and identify young people not participating”
so that they can be provided with a Connexions service. That is not so that something can be enforced against them but because the purpose of this whole part concerns the local authority’s duty to support young people to fulfil their duties to participate.

John Hayes: The Minister is stretching the credulity of the Committee to its very limits. Is he really saying that identification of non-participants is purely to give them advice and could never be used to ensure that non-participants do participate in line with the statutory responsibilities and powers of local authorities?

Jim Knight: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the purposes of identifying young people who are not participating is to provide them with support. The personal adviser would make contact with the young person, discuss their support needs and seek to broker those support needs for them. Subsequently, at some point down the track, there may be a conversation that takes place because that person refuses that support, but that is not because of the initial transfer of data. The initial transfer of data was in order to inform their support needs.

David Laws: Is the Minister saying, for example, that the provision relating to the police could not be used to ask the police to give information that would help the local authority to pursue an individual who is not complying with their responsibilities under the Bill and pursue that person, potentially through an enforcement route, for not being in the education and training sectors?

Jim Knight: In that we are going to issue guidance to say this should be used for support rather than enforcement, the purpose of the police and other criminal justice-related bodies being listed here is in order for that support to understand the circumstances of that young person. If they are involved with a youth offending team, that information is extremely relevant for people in understanding what they are dealing with and the support that is needed.

David Laws: I think that the Minister is being helpful. Is he confirming that a local authority would never go to the police, in relation to a young person who was not complying with the responsibility to be in education or training and who had perhaps disappeared from their home address, to ask them to identify where that individual might be or whether they were in contact with some part of the existing police organisation in order to help the local authority to track them down and take enforcement action against them?

Jim Knight: I cannot foresee a circumstance in which Connexions personal advisers using these data would go to the police in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. I hope that that is helpful to him.

Nick Gibb: Clause 16 states that the information should be used to assist the authority
“to exercise its functions under this Part.”
My understanding is that the phrase “this Part” means part 1 of the Bill and that part 1 refers to clauses 1 to 53 inclusive. Within clauses 1 to 53 are all the clauses about attendance notices, written notices to participate and the penalties that go with that. Have I understood correctly what is meant by “this Part”?

Jim Knight: In so far as the hon. Gentleman has gone, clearly he has understood that. Then in clause 18 we say:
“In exercising its functions under this Part, a local education authority must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State.”
It is in that guidance that we will set out how this measure should be used. In the same way that we are giving our initial thoughts on clause 4 and some of the issues about that, I am happy to give our initial thoughts on this measure, although not the draft guidance, to assist the Committee.

Nick Gibb: I will be corrected by you, Mr. Bercow, if I am wrong, but my understanding is that guidance cannot overrule the provisions of primary legislation. If primary legislation gives local authorities the power to request the information—it says explicitly in the Bill that that is for the purpose of part 1, that is clauses 1 to 53—they are entitled to do that, regardless of what is in guidance that the Minister may or may not issue.

Jim Knight: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of guidance is not wrong, but he also has to understand the reality in which this measure works. I cannot foresee that some jobsworth officer in a local authority will want to incur the great cost of chasing around trying to enforce things left, right and centre. The reality is that the whole enforcement issue, which we have debated at huge length over the previous few weeks, is there as a culture change. It is there to be used in extremis, not to be used by officers going fishing.

David Laws: I am astonished by what the Minister is saying. Let us say that a local authority officer was aware that a young person was not in education or training as they were supposed to be under the Bill, but was deliberately trying to duck being tracked down for that purpose. Is the Minister really suggesting that that officer would be a jobsworth if they contacted the police to find out whether they knew where that individual was?

Jim Knight: Let us say that someone is deliberately flouting the law. The legislation does not say “must”, but the local authority can, and we would expect that it would, take enforcement action. However, I do not envisage fishing trips—people casting around trying to find individuals to enforce against.

Nick Gibb: Just taking the Minister at his own word—his own argument—what information would the Connexions service want from the police service to help it to provide careers advice?

Jim Knight: If someone has been in trouble with the law, that certainly affects their life chances. Therefore, they may have particular support needs and particular service provision may be helpful to them in preventing reoffending behaviour and getting them re-engaged in education and training.

John Bercow: Order. I apologise to the Minister for interrupting him before he has completed his answer to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but we have reached the appointed hour.

It being One o’clock,The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.